Fifty Years of
Climate Failure2023 Scorecard on Insurance, Fossil Fuels
and the Climate Emergency

With a Preface by Kim Stanley Robinson
November 2023

Published by

About this report

Insure Our Future, an international campaign calling on insurancecompanies to exit coal, oil and gas in line with a pathway limiting
global warming to 1.5°C. The organizations engaged in the campaign
and co-publishers of the Scorecard include:

This is the seventh annual Scorecard on
Insurance, Fossil Fuels and the Climate
Emergency published by the Insure Our
Future campaign. The Scorecard analyzes theevolving role of the global insurance industry
in fueling or averting catastrophic climate
breakdown. It focuses on 30 leading primary
insurers and reinsurers, assessing and scoring
their policies and practices on insuring andinvesting in coal, oil and gas. The reporthighlights progress and loopholes, calls out
leaders and laggards, and identifies challenges
and opportunities for the year ahead.

Campax (Switzerland), Coal Action Network (United Kingdom), Connecticut Citizen Action Group (USA),Ekō (international), Fundacja “Rozwój TAK – Odkrywki NIE” (Poland), Greenpeace (international), Investors
For Paris Compliance (Canada), Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Medio Ambiente (IIDMA, Spain), Japan
Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES, Japan), Korea Sustainability Investing Forum(KoSIF, Korea), Mazaska Talks (USA), Mothers Rise Up (United Kingdom), Public Citizen (USA), Reclaim
Finance (international), ReCommon (Italy), Re-set (Czech Republic), Solutions For Our Climate (Korea), Sierra
Club (USA), The Sunrise Project (international), Urgewald (Germany), Waterkeeper Alliance (international).

Research
Ariel Le Bourdonnec, Reclaim Finance
Rachel Mander, The Sunrise Project
Insuramore
AuthorPeter Bosshard, The Sunrise Project
Editors
Conor Quinn and David Mason,
Greenhouse Communications
DesignHeather Knight & Simon Arnoldi
Printer
The Print & Copy Shop, Sheffield
Photocredits
Greenpeace, Shutterstock, Adobe Stock
Currencies$ refers to US dollars in this report
unless otherwise specified
November 2023

2

3

Preface

This report is a very important new tool of measurement, part of a new and quickly
spreading model of the world and our actions in it. Central to that model is thisrealization: we have to live within our biosphere’s “safe operating space.” It’s not a
choice we can take or leave. This is the new formulation created by the planetary
boundaries model, which has been hugely influential, even transformative. Another new
insight follows from it: we have a sustainability imperative. In other words, we haveto conform to biophysical facts, or civilization will crash, and our children will face a
miserable future.

by Kim Stanley Robinson
Kim Stanley Robinson has won many awards for his science fiction novels, which explore
ecological sustainability and the catastrophic impacts of global warming. His latest novel
is The Ministry for the Future.

Given the many climate shocks of the last few years — and the sudden new
apprehension of reality created by the Covid pandemic, which taught us that problems
can appear out of our biosphere and force change — this new model, of planetary
boundaries and the sustainability imperative, has seized the imaginations of people
everywhere. It is the new global paradigm. We are at a historical crux: science,
government, academia, business — and therefore also the business of insurance — allthese are in the midst of immense change.

Insurance is the backstop of capitalism. If a business suffers unexpected losses, andhas paid to insure those losses properly, the insurer pays out and the business survives.
If not, the business may fail and disappear.
Re-insurance, which insures insurers, is sometimes regarded as the ultimate financial
backstop, but this is not always the case. In moments of potential financial collapse,
governments can step in and save businesses regarded as crucial to society. At thispoint the process becomes political and chaotic —changing laws in the midst of crisis isa very uncertain thing. Better if the laws hold up under the blows of big shocks; this iswhat insurance and re-insurance are designed to help with.

The speed of this change is shocking, and many are now looking around through these
new lenses of understanding, trying to see who exactly will go first in this moment ofnecessity. Everyone knows we have to act, but who goes first? Insurance goes first.
That’s its business! It calculates risk, and refuses to insure risks that are too dangerous
to cover. That’s precisely the calculation it is designed to make.
So now it needs to stop insuring the fossil fuel industry. It can do that legally, and it
could be said that it has a fiduciary responsibility to do so, but its moral and physicalresponsibility are even higher. Like everyone else, it has to conform to the sustainability
imperative, as a survival move. And it can; it can by its very design pivot almost instantly,
given the new information at hand, framed by the new modeling we have, and the new
reality we face.

Now climate change is accelerating drastically, and widespread calls to decarbonize ourcivilization as quickly as possible are backed by the undeniable evidence of immense
damage to the biosphere, caused mainly by our burning of fossil fuels and the resulting
accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This summer was the hottest on
record by an astonishing degree, and yet it may also be one of the coolest summers of
the coming decades.

Read this report, which is part of a world historical paradigm shift toward sustainability;
ponder the implications of it; then make the move. We need it.

Unless we take action now, the damages to come will be catastrophic and deadly, andin financial terms, unsupportable. This is to say, insurance will fail; no business could
afford to pay the premiums high enough to fund its pay-outs. That includes re-insurance,
which will fail for the same reason. At that point we’ll be thrust into a world of financial
chaos, but more importantly by far, we’ll be in a world of social and physical chaos,suffering, and death.
This is an easy call to make, it does not take a science fiction writer to see it; thetrajectory we are on is quite clear. So is our general awareness of it.
And yet, as this report tells us, insurance companies continue to insure fossil fuelcompanies, including projects that will increase production, even though we understandthis is poisoning our planet. And it has to be added, some governments are making
political choices to financially subsidize the expansion of fossil fuel extraction, despite
the clear evidence that this process will wreck civilization.
These destructive choices are being made mostly by well-educated and well-intentioned
people. So it must be the case that they are not yet seeing the nature of the problem.
It’s possible they are perceiving the world through a lens that says our situation isaccurately described by economics, rather than physics; they are therefore making
decisions based on numbers, rather than bodies and objects.
So here, in coping with a new biophysical situation, the work of creating a newunderstanding that changes the way people act can be greatly assisted by new
measurements, rubrics, and models, including calculations of cost and benefit, and profit
and loss. That’s how businesses work, and how individuals decide things.

4

Preface2023 Scorecard

5

Executive Summary

2023 is on track to become the hottest year on record.
More than 3.8 billion people – nearly half the world’s population – experienced sustained
extreme heat between June and August, which was made more likely because ofhuman-caused climate change. Most of these people live in Africa, South Asia, Southand Central America – world regions that have contributed very little to the climate crisis.1

3.8
billion people
experienced
sustained extreme
heat between Juneand August.

Since at least 2021, climate scientists have agreed that we need to stop expanding
fossil fuel extraction immediately and phase out the production of coal, oil and gas at an
ambitious pace in order to avoid unmanageable climate breakdown. In its 6th Assessment
Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that the window tolimit global warming to 1.5°C is rapidly closing and will require “phasing out all unabatedfossil fuels”.
“Financial institutions everywhere must end lending, underwriting, and investments incoal anywhere”, UN Secretary General António Guterres warned in June 2023. “And theymust commit to end financing and investment in exploration for new oil and gas fields,
and expansion of oil and gas reserves – investing instead in the just transition in thedeveloping world.” 2
Against the warnings of global leaders and scientists, and in spite of a rapid increase
in renewable energy generation, the consumption of fossil fuels continued to increasein 2022 and CO2 emissions from the energy sector reached a new record level of 39.3
billion tonnes.3
Under public pressure ahead of the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, morethan 500 financial institutions from around the world pledged to take climate action andjoined net zero alliances. As part of this process, 31 insurance companies joined the
newly founded Net Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA).
After two years of preparatory work, financial institutions were supposed to start taking
action on their net zero commitments this year. All members of net zero alliances were
expected to publish transition plans documenting their short-, medium- and long-term
strategies to reach net zero emissions in June, and the NZIA members committed to
publishing targets for reducing their insured emissions in July.

“Even 1.5°C of global warming is
extremely risky, with the chanceof triggering multiple climate tipping
points ... 1.5°C should be viewed
similar to a ruin scenario for society– a level we must not exceed.”

Yet these commitments have remained unfulfilled. Most members of the NZIA buckled
under the political pressure of the fossil fuel lobby in the United States and left their
net zero alliance this year. The departing members promised to keep up their climate
commitments but have completely failed to do so. No insurers have yet set targets to
reduce their insured absolute emissions by at least 34% by 2030, a commitment they
made when they joined the NZIA.

Report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries& Climate Crisis Advisory Group, November 2022
6

Executive Summary

2023 Scorecard

7

Slow progress in fossil fuel restrictions fails to matchurgency of climate crisis

Figure 1: Insurers Addressed In This Report

In the past year, insurance companies have continued to adopt fossil fuel restrictions
on their underwriting, and coal companies are finding it increasingly difficult to accessinsurance cover not just for new projects, but even for their ongoing operations.4 This
demonstrates the power the insurance industry has to accelerate the transition awayfrom fossil fuels.

45
insurance companies
with coal exit policies

18
insurance companies
with restrictions
on conventional oil
and gasYet the shift away from fossil fuels does not meet the urgency of the climate crisis, andmost insurers continue to underwrite the expansion of oil and gas infrastructure.
Since the publication of the last scorecard report in November 2022, the number of
insurance companies with coal exit policies has increased from 41 to 45 and thosewith restrictions on conventional oil and gas are up from 14 to 18. Primary insurers witha 41.2% share of the commercial property & casualty market have now taken action
on coal (up from 39.8% last year), and those taking action on conventional oil andgas account for 19.6% of the market (up from 15.4%). In the reinsurance industry themarket share of companies with restrictions is 62.7% for coal (up from 58.2% in 2022)
and 46.7% for oil and gas (up from 43.4%).
While some insurers have adopted bold restrictions covering upstream oil and gas
as well as mid- and downstream oil projects, many other policies are extremely
limited. Japanese insurer MS&AD, for example, will no longer offer new cover for coalcompanies’ projects to extract oil and gas but will continue to do so for oil and gas
companies.
Zurich is a stark example of the industry’s climate hypocrisy. The Swiss insurancecompany pledged to align its business with the goals of the Paris Agreement in 2015
and was one of the founding members of the NZIA in 2021. Yet Zurich is the world’s
sixth largest fossil fuel underwriter and, with Lloyd’s of London, the only major
European insurer that continues to underwrite new oil and gas extraction projects.
The company has repeatedly championed its net zero targets and transition plans as
an alternative to oil and gas restrictions. Yet Zurich was one of the first insurers to quit
the NZIA in April, it has published no emissions reduction target, and it postponed its
first transition plan to 2024.
“Every company needs to stand for what they believe in”, Zurich’s CEO said after hiscompany left the NZIA.5 The track record of the Swiss insurer – and the insurance
industry more widely in regard to oil and gas expansion – is a damning indictment of
insurers’ stance on climate action.

8

Executive Summary99

Leaders and Laggards

0
insurers are alignedwith the 1.5°C
Paris target

Every year the Insure Our Future Scorecard assesses and ranks 30 leading insurance(and reinsurance) companies on the effectiveness of their fossil fuel policies. Scores
are based on insurers’ responses to a survey carried out by the Insure Our Future
campaign and on publicly available information in the case of non-respondents.
Although some insurers have introduced significant restrictions on fossil fuels, none
are aligned with the 1.5°C Paris target and overall, the industry’s response to climate
emergency is totally inadequate. To highlight this, the three top spots of this year’sscorecard are left empty for the first time.
As in the past two years, Allianz scores highest for its overall policies on fossil
fuel underwriting. The German insurer is followed by Generali, Aviva, Swiss Re,
AXA, Hannover Re and AXIS Capital. On coal exit policies specifically Allianz,
AXA, Swiss Re and Generali score highest, while Aviva, Generali, Allianz and
Hannover Re rank highest for their oil and gas restrictions.
The insurers of the Lloyd’s market collectively are the world’s biggest fossil fuelunderwriters, earning an estimated $1.6-2.2 billion in premiums last year, research
for this report reveals.6 Alongside Lloyd’s, Berkshire Hathaway, Everest Re, Starr and
W.R. Berkley are revealed as the fossil fuel insurers of last resort.
Many of the oil and gas restrictions which insurers have adopted are extremely limited inscope. On average, the 30 companies assessed in this report score 3.8 out of 10 points
for their coal exit policies but only 1.4 out of 10 points for their restrictions on oil and gas.

Insurers abandon communities affected by climate risks
As the climate crisis escalates, numerous insurance companies are withdrawing theircover from regions particularly affected by climate change in Australia, the UnitedStates and other countries. Major reinsurers such as AIG Re, AXIS Capital, AXA XL,
Everest Re, SCOR and TransRe have reduced cover for natural catastrophes or left theproperty market altogether, causing a spike in premiums. Yet while companies abandon
communities affected by climate risks, they continue to fuel the climate crisisby underwriting and investing in the expansion of fossil fuels.

Turning to fossil fuel divestment policies, SCOR retains its top place by a large margin,
ahead of Generali, Swiss Re, Zurich, QBE and AXA. While many companies score
well on their coal divestments, SCOR is the only insurer that will no longer invest in any
companies with upstream oil and gas expansion plans.

It is 50 years since the insurance industry first warned about the risks of climate change,
and also the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Association, the think tank which brings
together the CEOs of the world’s biggest insurance companies. Yet after half a century,
the industry’s climate actions remain completely insufficient. Two years after the Glasgow
climate summit, the net zero commitments of most insurance companies have resulted ina lot of paperwork, some modest practical steps and a lot of greenwashing.
On November 28-29 this year, on the eve of the COP28 climate summit in Dubai,
insurance CEOs will gather at a conference in Zurich to celebrate the 50th anniversaryof the Geneva Association. The role of insurers in accelerating the world’s decarbonization
features prominently on the agenda. These CEOs have been aware of the risks whichclimate changes poses to global society throughout their professional careers. They arein a powerful position to support and accelerate the global transition from fossil fuels toclean technologies. Yet at this critical point, the CEOs and their companies – along withmost other financial institutions and governments – risk squandering our last chance tolimit the climate crisis to a somewhat manageable level. Worse, they are adding fuel to thefire by underwriting and investing in the continued expansion of oil and gas extraction.
A scorched, uninsurable world is a world without an insurance industry and so insurancecompanies have an eminent self-interest in scaling up their climate action. Insurers havedemonstrated that they can accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels through their coalexit policies. They urgently need to adopt similar policies on oil and gas.

10102023 Scorecard

11Theworld’sbiggestfossilfuelinsurers
In spite of the public interest in transparency,
insurance contracts are treated as if they werecommercial secrets. With a few exceptions suchas data leaks, it is impossible to know which
insurers are insuring which companies andprojects in the fossil fuel sector and beyond.
Insuramore, a highly reputed market intelligencefirm in the insurance sector, has carried out
research for this report which sheds some lighton the largest insurers of the fossil fuel industry.
Insuramore estimates the gross direct premiums
from insuring the fossil fuel industry at $21.25
billion in 2022, a nominal increase of some 6%
from 2021. These premiums do not include
the revenues of captive insurers of fossil fuelcompanies and the reinsurance market.27
The biggest oil and gas insurers, again
according to Insuramore estimates, are
AEGIS, PICC and SOGAZ, followed by
Chubb, Allianz, Zurich, W.R. Berkley,
AXA, Everen and Everen Specialty.
Non-OECD insurers play a larger role in theremaining market for coal insurance, where
Insuramore considers the biggest carriers to be
PICC, China Coal Insurance and Yingda Taihe,
followed by Fairfax Financial, Chubb, Ping An,
Liberty Mutual, FM Global, Starr and AIG.
For practical purposes the fossil fuel insurance
market (not including captive insurers) can bedivided among the following actors:

12

The world’s biggest fossil fuel insurers•

Multiline insurers with big public brands(in particular Chubb, Allianz, AXA, Zurich,
AIG, Liberty Mutual, Tokio Marine,
Mapfre, Travelers, QBE and MS&AD) with
an approximate combined market share of
37% (38% in the case of oil and gas; 33%
in the case of coal);28

Like captive insurers, insurers of non-OECD
countries and mutual insurers made up of energy
companies are less exposed to reputationalrisk. They don’t have retail customers andpublic brands, they are not listed on the stock
exchanges or they operate in countries with nopolitical space for NGO campaigns.

•

Insurers from non-OECD countries such as
China and Russia (PICC, Sogaz, Yingda
Taihe, Ping An, China Coal Insurance
and China Pacific) with an approximate
combined market share of 27% (oil and gas
23%; coal 44%);

According to Insuramore estimates, the top-10 fossil fuel insurers in 2022 are as follows (million $):••Mutual insurance companies of the energy
sector (AEGIS, Everen and Everen
Specialty and FM Global) with an estimatedcombined market share of 21% (oil and gas
24%; coal 8%);Specialty insurers from OECD countries(Fairfax Financial, W.R. Berkley, Starr,
Berkshire Hathaway and Arch) with anapproximate combined market share of
15% (oil and gas 15%; coal 16%).

The insurers of the Lloyd’s market are assessedindividually by Insuramore. Taken together, they
are the world’s biggest fossil fuel underwriters,
accounting for an estimated 9% of the noncaptive fossil fuel insurance market in 2022, withan estimated $1.6-2.2 billion in premiums. (See box,
p16: Lloyd’s of London: climate wreckers of last resort.)

However, Chinese insurers, captive insurers
and most energy sector mutuals rely on coverfrom global reinsurance companies for theirbusiness. AEGIS and Everen Specialty forexample secured reinsurance cover for 38% and
22% respectively of their business in 2022. The
fossil fuel policies of reinsurers, both for theirfacultative and their treaty business, are thus
critical for the insurance industry’s shift awayfrom fossil fuels.29

Rank

Name

Country of Headquarter

Premium range

Midpoint

1.

AEGIS

Bermuda1,550-1,850

1,700

2.

PICC

China

1,250-1,650

1,450

3.

Sogaz

Russia800-1,100

950

4.

Chubb

Switzerland/USA

550-850700

5.

Allianz

Germany475-775

625

6.

AXA

France450-750600

6.

Fairfax Financial

Canada450-750600

6.

Zurich

Switzerland

450-750600

9.

W.R. BerkleyUSA

525-625

575

10.

AIG

USA

425-675

550

13

Recommendations

Since 2017, the Insure Our Future campaign has called on the insurance industry to alignits business with the 1.5°C target of the Paris Agreement. In March 2023, the campaign
sent a letter to the 30 leading international fossil fuel insurers depicted in Figure 1 asking
them to take six steps to align their activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement (SeeRecommendations, below).
In May, the Insure Our Future campaign shared a questionnaire and a list of criteria withthe 30 insurers, detailing how their policies would be scored and requesting a reply by
July 15, 2023.7 By mid-October 2023, 19 companies had replied.8 The responses andother publicly available information were analyzed and scored by Reclaim Finance,a research and campaign organization, in collaboration with the Insure Our Future
campaign. Each company received its scores before the report was published.
Further details of the scoring methodology can be found atinsure-our-future.com/scorecard

Recommendations
Immediately cease insuring new and expanded coal, oil, and gas projects.

Immediately stop insuring any new customers from the fossil fuel sector which are not aligned witha credible 1.5°C pathway, and stop offering any insurance services which support the expansionof coal, oil and gas production at existing customers. Within two years, phase out all insurance
services for existing fossil fuel company customers which are not aligned with such a pathway.

“Insurers have to assess risks
toourfuture.Iftheycan’tsee
the damage that fossil fuelscause to our future and the risks
they are creating for our people,
what’stheirpoint?”
Joseph Sikulu, Pacific Climate Warriors

14

Recommendations

Immediately divest all assets, including assets managed for third parties, from coal, oil,and gas companies that are not aligned with a credible 1.5°C pathway.

Immediately define and adopt binding targets for reducing insured emissions which aretransparent, comprehensive and aligned with a credible 1.5°C pathway.

Immediately adopt robust due diligence and verification mechanisms to ensure thatclients fully respect and observe all human rights, including a requirement that they obtainand document the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of impacted Indigenous
Peoples as articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Immediately bring stewardship activities, membership of trade associations and public
positions as a shareholder and corporate citizen in line with a credible 1.5°C pathway ina transparent way.9

2023 Scorecard

15 loyd’sofLondon:
L
Climate wreckers of last resort
Taken together, the insurers operating on the
Lloyd’s market are the world’s biggest fossil fuelunderwriters. According to Insuramore, Lloyd’s
insurers accounted for $1.6-2.2 billion in fossil fuelpremiums in 2022 or 9% of the world total.
The leading role of the Lloyd’s market is illustrated
by numerous case studies. When Vietnam stillsought to develop the new Vung Ang 2 coal
power plant in 2021, 13 Lloyd’s insurers offered
27% of the required capacity.44 Of the 69 insurers
underwriting oil and gas companies in the North
Sea, 28 are Lloyd’s insurers. Lloyd’s is also thesecond-biggest insurer of coal mining in the
United States. (See box, p32: Insuring coal mining
in the U.S.)
At least six Lloyd’s insurers have previously insured
the construction or operation of the Adani Group’s
giant Carmichael coal mine in Australia but have now
stopped doing so, in the case of Probitas1492 aslate as December 2022. Five other Lloyd’s insurers –Hamilton, Markel, RenaissanceRe, SA Meacockand Starr – have refused to comment on theirposition on the project.45
Lloyd’s adopted a coal, tar sands and Arctic
policy in December 2020 but has since statedthat it is “not mandating” its insurers to comply
with this policy. Lloyd’s is expected to update its
ESG guidelines before the end of the year.
Analysis by Insure Our Future partner Reclaim
Finance found major differences among the
20 biggest Lloyd’s managing agents, which
represent more than 80% of the Lloyd’s market.
Five of these managing agents – RiverStone,
Chaucer, RenaissanceRe, Ascot and Aegis –have not taken any measures on fossil fuels. On
the other hand, the managing agents of AXA XL,
Hannover Re (Argenta) and Munich Re haveruled out support for new oil and gas extraction
projects (even if only from 2025 in the case of
AXA XL).46“The undoubted impact of fossil fuels on
climate change demands a proactive stancefrom insurers”, Munich Re’s Dominick Hoare, amember of the Lloyd’s Council, has said. Yet the
Lloyd’s market as a whole appears to be intent on
becoming climate wreckers of last resort.

Scoring Grid
Underwriting
Oil and Gas(Re)insurer

Country

Score

Rank

Investment

Coal
Score

Rank

Total
Score

Rank

Total
Score

Rank

1
2
3

Allianz

3.7

3

10.0

1

6.6

4

4.0

9

Generali

4.0

1

8.3

4

5.4

5

5.8

2

Aviva

4.0

1

7.8

6

5.1

6

4.8

8

Swiss Re

3.3

5

8.8

3

4.6

7

5.6

3

AXA

2.0

9

9.3

2

4.5

8

5.6

3

Hannover Re

3.4

4

6.2

9

4.0

9

3.2

12

Axis Capital

1.3

13

8.2

5

3.9

10

4.9

5

Zurich

1.5

11

7.8

7

3.5

11

5.3

6

Munich Re

2.4

7

5.6

10

3.2

12

3.1

13

SCOR

1.7

10

6.5

8

3.1

13

10.0

1

HDI Global – Talanx

2.5

6

4.7

12

3.1

14

3.5

11

Mapfre

2.1

8

5.2

11

3.0

15

4.0

9

QBE

1.2

16

4.0

13

2.1

16

5.1

7

AIG

1.3

14

2.7

14

1.6

17

2.4

14

Chubb

1.3

12

2.0

16

1.5

18

1.1

22

Sompo

1.2

15

2.0

16

1.4

19

2.2

17

MS&AD

1.0

17

2.0

16

1.3

20

2.2

18

Tokio Marine

1.0

17

2.0

16

1.3

20

2.2

18

Samsung FM

1.0

17

2.3

15

1.3

22

2.2

18

The Hartford

0.9

20

2.0

16

1.3

23

2.4

14

Travelers

0.9

20

2.0

16

1.2

24

2.4

14

Ping An

0.0

23

1.3

22

0.6

25

1.1

22

Liberty Mutual

0.0

23

1.3

22

0.4

26

1.1

22

Lloyd's

0.1

22

0.1

24

0.1

27

2.2

18

WR Berkley

0.0

23

0.0

25

0.0

28

1.1

22

Berkshire Hathaway

0.0

23

0.0

25

0.0

28

0.0

26

Everest Re

0.0

23

0.0

25

0.0

28

0.0

26

PICC

0.0

23

0.0

25

0.0

28

0.0

26

Sinosure

0.0

23

0.0

25

0.0

28

0.0

26

Starr

0.0

23

0.0

25

0.0

28

0.0

26

The first three lines in this ranking remain
empty. While some insurers perform
strongly on certain policy aspects, none
have shown the overall leadership which
the climate crisis demands

Scoring Key
0.0 - 1.4

1.5 - 3.4

3.5 - 7

7.1 - 10Insurers knew: Fifty years of climate failure2023 is on track to become the hottest year on record, and relentless heatwaves havescorched China, North Africa, South Asia, the United States and other parts of theworld. Wildfires of unprecedented size and fury have destroyed large parts of Canada,
Greece and Maui. As Munich Re warned 50 years ago, flooding has intensified aswell: more than 10,000 people have died in just one disaster in Libya and other floods
claimed hundreds of lives in Brazil, India, Korea, Sudan, Rwanda and the Democratic
Republic of Congo.
In the industrialized world as well as the Global South, such climate disasters
predominantly impact poor and marginalized groups – including women, children,
migrant communities and Indigenous peoples – which have historically contributed
very little to the climate crisis. They are also most vulnerable to the food insecurity,
public health crises and sea level rise which the climate crisis fosters.
The insurance industry is keenly aware of these impacts. “Climate change ishappening more quickly than anticipated, with severe impacts already being felt by
millions globally at the current level of warming of 1.2°C”, a report by the UK’s highly
reputed Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) warned in July 2023.12
Five years ago, the IPCC described the stark consequences of global warming
beyond 1.5°C. Among other impacts, an increase of average global temperaturesby 2°C would bring an irreversible loss of ecosystems (including the complete
destruction of coral reefs), increase the frequency and intensity of rainstorms anddroughts, and expose hundreds of millions of people to climate risks and poverty.13“History is coming for the planetwreckers, the fossil fuel baronsandtheirenablers,profitingfrom
destruction. Together, the rest of
us can write a different story”

In its 6th Assessment Report of March 2023, the IPCC emphasized that we have a final
chance to limit global warming to 1.5°C if we act quickly and decisively. The Panelconfirmed findings by the International Energy Agency (IEA) that we cannot afford
any fossil fuel expansion – and must wind down existing assets rapidly – if we are toachieve that goal.
“2023 is a year of reckoning”, UN Secretary General António Guterres warned in
February. “It must be a year of game-changing climate action. We need disruption toend the destruction. No more baby steps. No more excuses. No more greenwashing.”“Even 1.5°C of global warming is extremely risky”, another report by the Institute andFaculty of Actuaries confirmed in November 2022, and “should be viewed similar to aruin scenario for society – a level we must not exceed.”15

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, May 2023

655
1973
insurance industry’s
first warning aboutclimate risks

18

Fifty years ago this summer, in August 1973, Munich Re published the insurance
industry’s first warning about the growing risks of climate change, stating that risingtemperatures would lead to “retreat of glaciers and polar caps, shrinking of lake
surfaces and an increase in marine temperatures”.10

coal power plants
proposed or underconstruction

Yet even as the climate crisis escalates, and in spite of the dire warnings fromscientists and world leaders, fossil fuel production continued to increase in 2022,
driving global CO2 emissions from energy consumption to a record high despite therapid growth in wind and solar capacity.16 The IEA predicts that demand for coal,oil and gas is set to peak in the coming years. However, as the agency’s Executive
Director Fatih Birol has warned, “the projected declines in demand we see based on
today’s policy settings are nowhere near steep enough to put the world on a path tolimiting global warming to 1.5C”.17
Looking ahead, thousands of new fossil fuel projects are still in the pipeline.
According to Global Energy Monitor, in addition to hundreds of coal, oil and gas
extraction projects, 655 coal power plants, 238 liquified fossil gas (LNG) importterminals, 980 gas power plants, 210,000 kilometers of gas pipelines and 31,000
kilometers of oil pipelines are currently proposed or under construction.18 If built,
these projects will lock in increased consumption for decades to come and willcompletely destroy our chances of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

In November 1990, Swiss Re issued another wake-up call, highlighting the “significant
body of scientific evidence indicating that last year’s record insured losses fromnatural catastrophes (…) may be the result of climatic changes that will enormously
expand the liability of the property-casualty industry”.11 In the five decades since theinsurance industry first warned about climate change, these risks have turned into agrim reality with disastrous human, environmental and financial impacts.

See Endnotes section at the back of the report for the full glossary of terms used in this section

Insurers knew: Fifty years of climate failure2023 Scorecard

19

Underwriting climate destruction

Underwriting the expansionof oil and gas extraction in
the North Sea

Almost none of the thousands of new fossil fuel projects in the pipeline can go forward
without insurance cover, and most ongoing production will quickly grind to a halt
without it. As AXA CEO Thomas Buberl stated in November 2021, “if you don’t have theinsurance, you will have no financing — whether it’s private, public, from an insurer, froman asset manager, whatever”.19

The extended North Sea region produced 3.6%of global oil and 4.5% of global gas output in
2020, with Norway accounting for more than halfof this production.30 The journal Nature has foundthat “nearly 60 per cent of oil and fossil methanegas (…) must remain unextracted to keep within
a 1.5°C carbon budget”.31 Norway is the country
best placed to engage in a just transition awayfrom fossil fuels, yet the Norwegian government
has rapidly increased the number of permits for
new offshore installations since 2021. The global
insurance industry is actively underwriting thisonslaught on the world’s carbon budget.

Moreover, as society’s risk managers, early warners about climate risks and one of thehidden hands behind modern industrial development, insurance companies have aparticular opportunity and responsibility for taking the game-changing climate action forwhich the UN Secretary General has called.
If insurance companies took climate science seriously, they would fully align theirunderwriting and investment strategies with a credible 1.5°C pathway and end all
support for the expansion of fossil fuels. They would forcefully engage their high-carbon
customers on the need to shift away from fossil fuels and advocate for bold climate
policies through their trade associations and on their own. They would have announced
ambitious new commitments at the UN Climate Ambition Summit in September 2023.
Some of them would currently be suing fossil fuel companies, to make polluters pay forthe growing costs of climate disasters and keep insurance affordable for climate-affected
communities.

Under Norway’s freedom of information law,
Greenpeace Nordic requested access tothe insurance certificates of the 21 oil andgas companies which received expansion
permits, including giants like Shell, Equinor andConocoPhilips, and 17 of them provided at least
some data.

Has any of this come to pass? Far from it. At a time when humanity has the last chance
to keep global warming below 1.5°C through bold climate action, the insurance industry
is maintaining its revenues from coal, oil and gas and even walking back some of its
earlier climate pledges.

$21BNgross direct
premiums from thefossil fuel industry
in 2022

While insurers’ climate commitments have accelerated the shift away from coal, they
have not yet limited insurance capacity for the oil and gas sector in a significant way.
According to estimates by market intelligence company Insuramore, gross direct
premiums from the fossil fuel industry (not including captive insurance) increased from$20 billion to $21.25 billion in 2022.20 (See box, p12-13: The world’s biggest fossil fuelinsurers.) A recent report on energy sector insurance from global broker Willis Towers
Watson found that “the focus on ESG seems to be declining somewhat”.21

Based on the available information, Greenpeacefound that at least 69 insurance companies areunderwriting the companies planning to expand
oil and gas extraction in the Norwegian North
Sea. The list of engaged insurers reads like a
Who’s Who of the global insurance industry, withfive captive insurers involved but also 19 of the 30
companies scored in this report.

In spite of their strong position to influence the global economy, most insurancecompanies are currently following trends in the energy markets rather than trying toshape them. “[Our] energy portfolio will likely reflect global energy demand”, a senior
energy underwriter at the fossil fuel insurer Convex stated in a comment which reflects
a sentiment widely shared in the insurance industry. “We can see where that’s going,
and we want to be part of that journey as long as we can make an adequate return forshareholders.”22

20

Insurers knew: Fifty years of climate failure

The most important underwriter is Lloyd’s ofLondon, with 28 Lloyd’s insurers managing 51
syndicates insuring the oil and gas companies in
the North Sea. Large public brands such as AIG,
Allianz, AXA, Liberty Mutual, SCOR, Swiss
Re, Tokio Marine and Zurich are also involved.
“By providing insurance coverage for thesecatastrophic oil projects, companies like Lloyd’sof London, Allianz, Zurich, SCOR and AIG areenabling climate crimes - ensuring a disaster”,
comments Greenpeace in the report.

2023 Scorecard

21Modest new fossil fuel restrictions
When the last scorecard report was published in October 2022, Swiss Re, Allianz andMunich Re had recently adopted substantive restrictions on their conventional oil andgas business and it appeared as if the insurance industry’s shift away from oil and gas
was accelerating. Yet progress has been slow this past year.
In December 2022, Korean Re announced that it would no longer provide individual
reinsurance cover for new coal mine and coal power projects. Korean Re was the first
Asian reinsurer to do so but added exceptions “under limited circumstances” for nationalenergy policy or social needs.
In March 2023, Beazley, a large Lloyd’s insurer, announced that it would no longer
underwrite “any new thermal coal, oil tar sands, or arctic energy exploration projects, orbusinesses which generated more than 5% revenues from these areas”.
Also in March, Chubb ceased insuring any oil and gas projects in national parks andother protected areas, as well as projects without methane emission reduction plans.
While these measures are very modest, they are significant because they were the first
restrictions on conventional oil and gas adopted by a U.S. insurer and were announced
despite strong campaigns against climate action by the U.S. fossil fuel lobby.
Following Allianz’s model, German insurer Talanx announced in May that it would nolonger insure new oil and gas fields, new oil power plants and other new infrastructure
directly associated with new oil fields.
In an update which is almost comic in its limitation, Japanese insurer MS&AD in May
decided that it would no longer offer new cover for oil and gas extraction by coal companies,
although it continues to underwrite extraction by oil and gas companies. The policy is solimited that it is not included in the list of 18 oil and gas restrictions of primary insurers.

Figure 2: Number of insurers with fossil fuel restrictions, by sector

18 oil & gas

In response to public pressure for corporate
climate action, numerous insurers andother financial institutions adopted net zerocommitments in the run-up to COP26 in Glasgow.
In June 2021, eight insurance companies founded
the Net Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA) as part of
the UN Race to Zero campaign.
The NZIA was created as a high-ambition group,
but soon started to settle for lowest common
denominator positions in an effort to attract moremembers. Unlike the Net Zero Asset Owners
Alliance, the NZIA, for example, did not adopt
any guidance or obligations on fossil fuels.
The main achievement of the Alliance was the
adoption of a target-setting protocol in January
2023. This protocol is full of massive loopholes.
It does for example not cover emissions fromnew fossil fuel projects, sets minimum emission
reduction thresholds of only 34% by 2030
(compared with the IPCC’s 43% target), andallows insurers to simply engage their customers
in a dialogue rather than reducing emissions in
the real world.32
Insurance companies in the United States are
regulated by state governments, unlike otherfinancial institutions. Even though the NZIA israther toothless, this left an opening for thepolitical servants of the fossil fuel lobby to target
its members as part of its broader campaign
against ESG commitments. In May 2023, theAttorneys General of 23 states threatened to takeanti-trust action against NZIA members.
By the end of September, 20 of the 31 NZIA
members had left the Alliance in response topressure from the fossil fuel lobby. “My job is to
manage insurance”, AXA CEO Thomas Buberl
explained to the Financial Times, “and not todeal … with 23 attorneys-general in the US.”33

26 tar sand

When they departed the NZIA, Munich Re,
Swiss Re and many other prominent insurers
reassured the public that they would uphold theirclimate commitments. In practical terms, thismeant publishing a transition plan by June, as

45 coal22

Two years of net zero insurance greenwashing

Insurers knew: Fifty years of climate failure2023 Scorecard

they had pledged to do under the Race to Zero,and preparing net zero targets by the end of July.
In reality, only a handful of insurance companies(including Allianz, AXA, Fidelis, the NN Group,
SCOR and Tokio Marine) have so far publishedtheir transition plans and emissions reduction
targets. Allianz, which according to Insuramore
is still the world’s fifth largest fossil fuel insurer,
set an ambitious target to reduce the carbon
intensity of its commercial property & casualty
portfolio by 45% by 2030. Yet no insurancecompanies have so far adopted targets to reduce
their absolute insured emissions by at least 34%
during the 2019-2030 period, as they committed
to under the NZIA’s target setting protocol.
When the Insure our Future campaign carriedout a detailed survey on how large insurancecompanies are encouraging and incentivizing thedecarbonization of high carbon emitting sectors
such as agriculture, automobiles, cement andsteel, it found that insurers had no specificknowledge or plans for how to promote thetransition of these sectors. When it comes to net
zero insurance, the emperor has no clothes.
Ever since the IEA published its net zero roadmap
in May 2021, scientists have agreed that there isno space for any new fossil fuel projects in the
global carbon budget and the transition awayfrom coal, oil and gas needs to accelerate. Rather
than aligning their business strategies with thisconsensus, insurance companies have engaged
in two years of bureaucratic processes. These
processes greenwashed their ongoing fossil fuelprofits but have not produced any tangible results.
“Every company needs to stand for what they
believe in; you cannot hide behind [climate]alliances”, Zurich CEO Mario Greco, who
continues to underwrite new fossil fuel projects,
stated in August 2023.34 The failure of the NZIA
re-emphasizes the responsibility of individual
fossil fuel insurers to take climate action – andthe role of regulators, climate campaigners andother actors to hold greenwashers to account.

23

Also in May ASR, a medium-sized Dutch insurer, excluded cover for “producers ofthermal coal and unconventional oil and gas products (such as shale gas, Arctic oiland tar sands)”. Other upstream, midstream and downstream fossil fuel companies
will need to have 1.5°C-aligned transition plans in place to receive insurance.

A few other insurers strengthened their oil and gas restrictions in significant ways. In
May, French reinsurer SCOR expanded its exclusion of new oil field production projects
to include facultative23 cover for new oil field development projects. As previously, SCOR
will offer exceptions for companies with credible, science-based transition plans.

In June Helvetia, a medium-sized Swiss insurer, ended cover for new coal mining,coal power and unconventional oil and gas projects. Helvetia decided to divest
from conventional oil and gas companies expanding their production but will stillinsure their projects.

In July, AXA expanded the restriction of cover for new oil and gas exploration projects toalso include new development projects (from 2024 for oil and September 2025 for gas).
Like SCOR, AXA offers exceptions for companies with credible transition plans, but fails
to explain how new extraction projects can be compatible with credible transition plans.

Also in June, mid-sized Austrian insurer Uniqa announced that they would cease
underwriting any new oil and gas business from 2024 and 2025 respectively. By 2030
and 2035, the Austrian insurer will phase out all companies that generate more than 5%of their business from oil and gas. Uniqa’s restrictions cover the upstream, midstream
and downstream sectors and offer a model which other insurers should follow.

In addition, numerous insurance companies have ruled out underwriting specific fossil
fuel projects. Under pressure from campaign groups, 46 insurance companies haveruled out support for the Adani Group’s Carmichael coal mine in Australia. By early
October 2023, 23 insurers pledged not to underwrite the East Africa Crude Oil Pipelinein Uganda/Tanzania, and 20 insurers put policies in place to protect Gwich’in Indigenous
rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Even though a lot of fossil fuel projects impact Indigenous lands and rights, AXIS Capitalis the only insurance company that explicitly rules out support for any projects on
Indigenous territories without Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC). Allianz and Swiss Re
screen for FPIC in their underwriting process.

Figure 3: Insurers adopting oil & gas exit policies, by year

2020

63%

In summary, four additional insurance companies adopted coal exit policies this past
year (for a total of 45), five announced new restrictions on extreme oil and gas (for a totalof 26) and another four, on conventional oil and gas (for a total of 18).24

Market share of
reinsurers with coalexit policies

In the past year the market share of primary insurers with fossil fuel restrictions hasgrown from 39.8% to 41.2% in coal and from 15.4% to 19.6% in oil and gas insurance.
The market share of reinsurers with similar restrictions has increased from 58.2% to62.7% in coal and from 43.4% to 46.7% in oil and gas insurance respectively. These
increases are positive but don’t meet the urgency of the moment.

47%

2021

Market share of
reinsurers with oil
and gas restrictions

2022

Many companies’ restrictions continue to contain large loopholes, particularly on oil
and gas. Of the 30 major insurers assessed in this report, only Aviva, Generali and
the German insurers Allianz, Hannover Re, Munich Re and Talanx have ceased
underwriting any new oil and gas extraction projects without major exceptions. Almost
no insurers have ended cover for new midstream and downstream gas infrastructuresuch as liquefied fossil gas (LNG) terminals and gas power plants, which are locking inincreased extraction for decades to come. Only Hannover Re will no longer insure new
midstream infrastructure benefitting new oil and gas production.
Through systematic information requests under freedom of information acts, Insure
Our Future partners have been able to produce more evidence on which insurancecompanies are still underwriting the fossil fuel companies that are increasing theextraction of oil and gas and continue to mine coal without any phase-out plans.
(See box p12-13: The World’s Biggest Fossil Fuel Insurers.)

2023

24

Insurers knew: Fifty years of climate failure2023 Scorecard

25

Shallow net zero promises

OutlookInsurance companies justify their continued support for the expansion of oil and gas
extraction in two ways. They assert that engaging fossil fuel companies in a dialogue
about the need for a net zero transition is more effective than ending cover for new
projects. They also argue that aligning their insurance companies with net zero
pathways across the board makes more sense than restricting cover for specific sectors
and projects.

Insurance companies have a responsibility to end cover for new coal, oil and gas projects
and phase out support for ongoing fossil fuel operations, and this is in their long-term
interest. Yet given competitive pressures, most are only prepared to take limited action
at best. With the option of collective voluntary climate action through the NZIA no longer
open, insurance regulators need to create a level playing field by starting to regulate theindustry’s transition away from fossil fuels.

Engaging coal, oil and gas companies on the need to phase out fossil fuel production isuseful as long as such dialogue complements policies excluding cover for new extraction
projects, rather than substituting for them. This is what numerous insurers are doing in
the coal sector. Global insurance brokers and coal company executives from around theworld have confirmed that the lack of insurance capacity was one of the drivers for theshift away from coal in recent years.

Pressure on the insurance industry to align its business with credible 1.5°C pathways willcertainly increase. Under a new EU directive, all large companies active on the European
market will need to report on their sustainability efforts starting in January 2024.
Under the draft Solvency II rules, which an EU parliament committee approved in July,
insurers will also need to publish transition plans with quantifiable targets and processes
for reaching net zero by 2050.

In contrast, asking oil and gas companies to align their business with climate scienceand stop extracting more oil and gas is neither credible nor effective as long as insurers
compete with each other to underwrite the new extraction projects they are supposedly
advising against.

In the United States, the Senate Budget Committee in June called on AIG, Chubb,
Liberty Mutual, Travelers, Berkshire Hathaway, Starr and other insurers to disclose theircover for and investments in fossil fuels, as well as information on how each insurer
respects human rights.

Insurers talk a lot about the need for oil and gas companies to transition away from fossil
fuels. In reality, they are not advocating for a transition away from fossil fuel extraction
but are satisfied if fossil fuel companies adopt shallow net zero commitments, shift fromcoal to gas extraction, invest in renewable energy projects and reduce their operationalemissions. This does nothing to reduce the climate impact of burning the oil and gas
these companies sell, which is by far the biggest part of their life-cycle emissions.
When the Insure Our Future campaign surveyed fossil fuel insurers about the success of
their engagement policies, none could point to a material shift of oil and gas companies
away from their core business. Oil majors have even walked back their previous
commitments to a net zero transition this year, and the oil and gas industry is currently
bankrolling a political campaign targeting insurance companies with net zero and ESG
commitments in the United States.
At least 31 insurance companies proclaimed net zero commitments and joined the Net
Zero insurance Alliance (NZIA) in recent years. Most have now left it, under pressure
from the U.S. anti-ESG campaign, but pledged that they would implement their net zerocommitments in an individual capacity.
When they joined the Alliance, insurers committed to publish transition plans in June
2023, and to publish targets in July for reducing emissions from the projects andcompanies they insure. A reality check suggests that most insurers have walked backtheir commitments or were never serious about them in the first place. (See box, p23: Twoyears of insurance greenwashing.)

The International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS), which holds its annual
meeting in Tokyo on November 6-10 this year, should create a process for regulating
the alignment of insurance underwriting with climate science, including a mandatory
requirement for science-based transition plans.

42%
Share of Millennials
ready to change
jobs over climate
concerns

Pressure on insurers to move away from fossil fuels is also growing from an unexpectedsource: potential employees. The insurance industry has an aging problem and in a
recent survey of more than 300 senior underwriters, 84% of respondents said they wereconcerned about “winning the war for talent”.25 In a global survey by Deloitte, 42% ofMillennials said that they had already changed or plan to change their job or industry due
to climate concerns.26 In May, more than 500 students and young graduates in the United
Kingdom signed a letter saying that they would not work for Lloyd’s and other companies
insuring fossil fuel expansion. As the climate emergency escalates, fossil fuel policies willaffect insurers’ chances to recruit the best and the brightest.
As the experience in the coal sector demonstrates, insurance can be a critical lever toaccelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. All actors interested in strengthening
climate action should increase pressure on fossil fuel insurers: not only regulators but
employees and potential employees, board members and potential board members,
NGOs and activists, customers and shareholders, ESG rating agencies and analysts.
The Insure Our Future campaign will work with these actors to increase pressure
on the insurance industry to accept its responsibility and play its part in preventing
unmanageable climate breakdown.

Insurance companies argue that they can’t align their businesses with a 1.5°C pathway ifsociety at large moves towards 2.7°C of global warming. While this may be true, insurancecompanies are not making a strong effort to accelerate the necessary transition. Most are
only prepared to implement net zero commitments as long as they don’t affect their shortterm profits.

26

Insurers knew: Fifty years of climate failure

27

Insurers’fossilfuelpolicies

The following elements make up strong and comprehensive fossil
fuel policies aligned with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global
warmingto1.5°Candwereusedasthecriteriaforscoringinsurers’
policies in this report.
Underwriting Policies“From our point of view, pressure
to cease underwriting [fossil fuels]
is very effective. Insurance is anincredible tool for enacting change.”

●

Scope
Policies should rule out insurance for all types of new coal infrastructure (including
mines and power plants as well as transport facilities); extreme fossil fuels such as
tar sands, associated pipelines, Arctic and ultra-deep water drilling; and any oil andgas expansion projects that drive increased production.

●

Types of cover
Policies should apply to all lines of business for new and existing projects andcompanies, except cover for protecting workers, ringfenced renewable energy
projects, and existing mine reclamation surety bonds. Reinsurers’ policies should
apply to treaty as well as facultative reinsurance.47●

Fossil fuel companies
Policies should apply comprehensive criteria to define companies operating in coal,oil and gas, and tighten cover over time in line with the need to phase out these fossil
fuels completely. Policies should immediately exclude new customers from the fossil
fuel sector not aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, and phase out all insurance services within
two years for existing fossil fuel company customers not aligned with such a pathway.

●

Emissions reduction targets
Insurers need to set emissions reduction targets for new projects as well as ongoing
operations which they insure, and define short- and medium-term targets across their
entire commercial property & casualty portfolio. The targets must cover the Scope
3 emissions of all carbon intensive sectors, including energy and power, and aim fora reduction of insured emissions of at least 43% by 2030, in line with IPCC findings.

●

Human rights
Policies should include robust due diligence to ensure that clients fully respect
all human rights, including a requirement that they obtain and document the Free,
Prior, and Informed Consent of impacted Indigenous Peoples.

Divestment Policies●

Scope
Policies should cover all coal, oil and gas companies that are not aligned with a 1.5°C
pathway, and companies providing pipelines and other transportation infrastructure.

●

Types of assets
Policies should cover equities and bonds; actively and passively managed funds;
insurers’ proprietary assets; and assets they manage for third parties.

●

Fossil fuel companies
See above under Underwriting Policies.

Dominick Hoare, Munich Re, November 2022
28

Insurers’ fossil fuel policies

2023 Scorecard

29Oil and Gas

Progress on underwriting

The number of oil and gas restrictions increased from 14 to 18 this year, and from 10 to 12
among the insurers covered in this report. If restrictions on cover for tar sands and Arctic
oil are included, the number increased from 21 to 26, including 18 from among the top-30
fossil fuel insurers.

This year more insurance companies have adopted or strengthened fossil fuel restrictions,even though not at the scale which the escalating climate crisis requires. Reflecting theinadequate response by the insurance industry to the climate emergency, the top threeplaces in this year’s scorecard remain empty.

Aviva, Generali, Allianz and Hannover Re rank highest for their policies on oil and gas.
Some of the oil and gas restrictions are, however, extremely limited in scope. Only 10
insurers – Allianz, AXA, Aviva, Generali, Hannover Re, HDI-Talanx, Mapfre, Munich
Re, SCOR and Swiss Re – have committed to no longer underwrite new conventional oil
and gas extraction projects. Of this group, AXA, SCOR and Swiss Re apply exceptions
for companies with credible transition plans. Transition plans which allow for new extraction
are not science-based so these loopholes are contradictions in terms.

As in the last two years, Allianz achieved the highest score for its fossil fuel underwriting
policies. This year, the German insurer is followed by Generali, Aviva, Swiss Re,
Hannover Re, AXA and AXIS Capital.
Coal
The number of coal exit policies increased from 41 to 45 in the past twelve months. Amongthe top 30 fossil fuel insurers covered in this report, 24 have adopted coal restrictions(although Lloyd’s of London has declared that its guidance is not mandatory). Allianz,
AXA, Swiss Re, and Generali score highest for their coal restrictions, while Berkshire
Hathaway, Everest Re, Lloyd’s, Starr and W.R. Berkley appear as coal insurers oflast resort. Chinese insurers have not adopted any coal restrictions either but will likely nolonger underwrite new projects outside their home country.
Most coal restrictions include a pledge to no longer insure new coal mines and coal power
plants. Only six insurers covered in this report – Allianz, AXA, AXIS Capital, Generali,
Zurich and, with some qualifications, Mapfre – have also pledged to end insurance forcompanies that plan to develop new coal projects.
Eight of the top 30 fossil fuel insurers – Allianz, AXA, AXIS Capital, Generali, Mapfre,
SCOR, Swiss Re and Zurich – have committed to phase out coal completely by 2030
in OECD and other European countries and by 2040 in the rest of the world. HannoverRe, Munich Re, SCOR and Swiss Re have made similar commitments for their treaty
reinsurance business.

Figure 4: Market share of action takers (Coal, 2017-2023)

3.8
average score of
insurers coal policies

1.4
average score of
insurers’ oil and gas
policies

Allianz, Munich Re and HDI-Talanx will no longer underwrite new midstream anddownstream oil infrastructure (but have not adopted any restrictions on mid- anddownstream gas). Hannover Re will no longer insure new midstream infrastructure
connected to expanding oil and gas reserves.
Hannover Re is also the only reinsurance company that has adopted guidelines for oil andgas projects (but not companies) in its treaty business. Swiss Re has announced that it
aims to prepare its own guidelines on the topic by the end of the year.
On average, the quality of insurers’ oil and gas restrictions is much poorer than that of theircoal exit policies. Allianz scored a full 10 out of 10 for its coal exit policy while insurers withthe strongest oil and gas restrictions – Generali and Aviva – only scored 4 out of 10 points.
On average, the 30 companies covered in this report scored 3.8 out of 10 points for theircoal and a meagre 1.4 out of 10 points for their oil and gas policies.

Figure 5: Market share of action takers (Oil and Gas, 2017-2023)

62.7
58.2
52.1
46.7

51.8
41.2
40.0

39.8
33.0
27.0

43.4
26.3

23.2
12.8

19.6

6.1

15.4

6.4

5.6

5.5
0.8

Market share of coal restrictions
Direct Insurance (%)

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

Market share of coal restrictions
Reinsurance (%)

Sources: IOF (2017 - 2019), Insuramore (2020 - 2023)

Market share of oil and gas restrictions
Direct Insurance (%)

2023 Scorecard

Market share of oil and gas restrictions
Reinsurance (%)

31

Progress on divestment

Insuring fossil fuels but not climate risks

Of the 30 insurers assessed in this report, 25 have coal divestment policies, up from 23
last year. Twenty insurers, up from 19 last year, have divested from at least some oil and gas
assets. Again, coal divestment policies are typically stronger than oil and gas divestment
policies, with average scores of 4.6 and 1.9 out of 10 respectively.
With a score of 10 out of 10, SCOR again ranks first in the fossil fuel divestment league
table, and by a large margin. Next in line are Generali, Swiss Re, Zurich, QBE and AXA.
AXA, AXIS Capital, Generali, SCOR, Zurich and Swiss Re all scored a full 10 out of
10 for their coal divestment policies. They have stopped investing in companies developing
new coal mines and coal power plants and also in coal companies not aligned with a 1.5°C
pathway more generally.
SCOR ranks highest for its oil and gas divestment policy, ahead of Generali, QBE, Swiss
Re and Aviva. While most insurers have only divested from unconventional oil and gas
companies, SCOR is the only insurer that will no longer invest in in any companies with
upstream oil and gas expansion plans.
Berkshire Hathaway, Everest Re, PICC, Sinosure and Starr have not taken any steps
to divest from coal, oil and gas companies.

Insuring coal mining in the U.S.
The U.S. is the world’s fourth largest coalproducer, mining 595 million short tons in 2022
alone.41 According to the One Earth Climate
Model’s sectoral pathways report, emissions
from coal combustion must be reduced by 49%
by 2025 and by 79% by 2030, compared with2019 levels.42 Yet U.S. coal production picked up
again in 2021 and 2022 after a slump during the
pandemic.
Coal combustion is not only the biggest sourceof CO2 emissions. Coal mining also has massive
impacts on water and air pollution, public healthand worker safety, including in the United States.
Without insurance, coal mining would not be
possible. Public Citizen, a partner group of the
Insure Our Future campaign, obtained certificatesof insurance for the 25 largest coal mines which
together produce more than 60% of total U.S.
coal output.
According to this data, AIG (underwriting 7 minesand 167 million tons of production), Lloyd’s ofLondon (10 mines, 135 million tons) and Starr(9 mines, 103 million tons) were the largest
insurers of coal mining in the United States,

32

Insurers’ fossil fuel policies

followed by specialty insurers such as Skyward,
James River and Westfield. Leading European
insurers Zurich (2 mines with 29 million tonsof production), AXA (2 mines, 21 million tons)
and Swiss Re (1 mine, 18 million tons) are also
among the leading underwriters of coal mining in
the United States.43
Among the insurers listed above, AIG, AXA,
Swiss Re and Zurich have adopted coalrestrictions, and Lloyd’s has adopted ESG
guidance which it does not enforce. The factthat all these insurers still insure coal mining
companies which are in no way aligned with
1.5°C pathways indicates the weakness of theirpolicies. Swiss Re’s involvement even violates
its own policy, which excludes support forcompanies and projects “that have more than
30% of exposure to thermal coal”.
“The contradictions between insurers’ sustainability
statements and their continued support for coalraise questions about their seriousness regarding
the climate crisis and their ability to act on longterm risks from climate change”, comments Public
Citizen, the publisher of the report.

Since 2017 annual insured losses from natural
catastrophes such as floods, hurricanes,
wildfires and droughts (which in many cases are
human-made disasters) have averaged over $110
billion, more than twice the $52 billion averageof the previous five years.35 In response to theincreasing frequency and severity of climate
disasters the insurance industry is withdrawing
from insuring climate risks – but in many cases
not from insuring fossil fuel expansion.
Exposure to catastrophic risks is concentrated
in the reinsurance industry and, since 2022,
major reinsurers such as AIG Re, AXIS Capital,
AXA XL, Everest Re, SCOR and TransRe
have reduced their cover for such risks or left
the property market altogether. According to
the Swiss Re Institute, the capital allocated toreinsurance globally declined by 20-25% in
2022, further adding to a spike in reinsurance
premiums.36
This past year State Farm, Allstate, Chubb,
Tokio Marine, AIG, AmGUARD (part ofBerkshire Hathaway) and other insurers
withdrew from California’s home insurance
market following years of escalating climate
disasters. Farmers restricted their offer andLiberty Mutual pulled out of business owners’
insurance. Collectively these insurers accounted
for more than two fifths of the state’s homeinsurance market in 2022.
The home insurance market is an early warning
sign of how climate change threatens the social
fabric of communities in the United States andmany other countries. According to the First
Street Foundation, properties in California,
Florida and Louisiana instantly lose up to 39%,
40% and 48% respectively of their value when
they lose insurance cover. The foundation
estimates that 39 million properties in the U.S.
are threatened by such price shocks due to their
exposure to flood, wind and wildfire risks.37
The shocking irony is that while insurancecompanies are abandoning communities

2023 Scorecard

affected by climate risks, they continue to fuelthe climate crisis by underwriting and investingin the expansion of fossil fuels. The U.S. Gulf
Coast offers a stark example of this hypocrisy.
There are proposals to build more than 20
liquified fossil gas (LNG) facilities in this region,
mostly in poor, racial minority and Indigenous
communities already overburdened by the fossil
fuel industry. If they go ahead, these projects
will lock in decades of increased methane gas
extraction, and will create additional health,safety and environmental risks for the local
communities.
According to the certificate of insurance for the
Freeport LNG terminal in Texas, a project with avery poor safety and public health record, such
facilities are enabled by insurance companies
such as AIG, Allianz, AXA, Chubb, Liberty
Mutual, SCOR, Lloyd’s and Starr.38 At the sametime growing numbers of property owners on the
Texas Gulf coast can no longer access private
insurance and are relying on a badly fundedstate-chartered insurance program.39
Insurance companies should stop underwriting
the projects that are making California, the U.S.
Gulf coast and parts of Australia – not to mention
climate-affected regions in the Global South –uninsurable. And while they can’t be expected
to absorb the growing losses from climate
disasters, they shouldn’t pass the buck to theclimate-affected communities or the state either,
but to the polluters who created the problems in
the first place.
Just as health insurers sued tobacco companies
to recoup some of their losses in the 1990s,
insurance and particularly reinsurance companies
should take fossil fuel companies to court andforce them to pay up for the climate disasters
they are causing. Such court action could keep
insurance affordable for communities exposed
to climate risks and send a strong message tofossil fuel companies that they need to urgently
change course.40

33

The Insure Our Future Campaign
Insure Our Future is an international campaign of NGOs and social
movements that hold the insurance industry to account for its rolein fueling the climate crisis. It calls on insurance companies toimmediately stop insuring new fossil fuel projects and phase out
support for existing coal, oil and gas operations in line with a pathway
limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The organizations engaged in the
campaign include:“Insurance companies are in a
powerful position to protect people
and the planet. They need to truly
protect communities impacted
by the climate crisis, rather than
supporting the fossil fuel industry
andprioritizingprofit.Theyneedto
be on the right side of history.”
Hilda Flavia Nakabuye, Fridays For Future Uganda
34

The Insure Our Future Campaign

International
Ekō; Greenpeace; Reclaim Finance; Sunrise
Project; Waterkeeper Alliance.

Combining engagement and public pressure,the campaign pursues a range of strategies
to reach its goals:

Asia
Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment andSociety (JACSES, Japan); Korea Sustainability
Investing Forum (KoSIF, Korea); Solutions For Our
Climate (Korea).

•

It conducts research on insurance companies’
support for fossil fuel projects and publishes
case studies and briefing papers.

•

It supports frontline communities in theircampaigns against insurers’ involvement inmajor fossil fuel projects that have no place ina low-carbon world. Examples include AdaniGroup’s Carmichael coal mine in Australia, oiland gas projects in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge in Alaska and the East African Crude
Oil Pipeline in Uganda/Tanzania.

•

It shares its analyses and demands with
the insurance industry through letters,presentations at conferences, and roundtablediscussions. Many groups engage insurers in
an ongoing dialogue and raise their demands
at shareholder meetings.

•

It puts pressure on individual insurers that are
lagging on climate action, with protests andother forms of direct action.

•

It mobilizes employees, potential future
employees, customers, shareholders andregulators to pressure insurers to align withcredible 1.5°C pathways.

•

It generates public interest in the insurance
industry’s role in the climate crisis througharticles and comments in mainstream media,
trade journals and social media.

EuropeCampax (Switzerland); Coal Action Network(UK); Fundacja “Rozwój TAK – Odkrywki NIE”
(Poland); Instituto Internacional de Derecho y
Medio Ambiente (IIDMA, Spain), Mothers Rise Up(UK); Re:Common (Italy); Re-set (Czech Republic);
Urgewald (Germany).
North America
Connecticut Citizen Action Group (USA); Investors
For Paris Compliance (Canada); Mazaska Talks;
Public Citizen (USA); Rainforest Action Network(USA); Sierra Club (USA).

Facultative insurance covers a specific risk or defined package of risks; treaty insurance covers all risk of a certain type.

2023 Scorecard

35

End notes1

Climate Central, Carbon pollution boosted heat for billions during
Earth’s hottest summer, September 7, 2023

2

United Nations, Secretary-General’s press conference - on Climate,
June 15, 2023

3

Energy Institute, Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2023

4

See Reuters, Coal miners forced to save for a rainy day by insurance
snub, August 31, 2023QW

5

Bloomberg, Zurich Insurance CEO Criticizes Climate Clubs After
Exodus, August 10, 2023

6

See box, p16: Lloyd’s of London: climate wreckers of last resort

7

See Criteria for Strong Fossil Fuel Policies section on page 29

10 Muenchener Rueckversicherungs-Gesellschaft, Hochwasser
Ueberschwemmung, August 1973, p. 7

8

AIG, Berkshire Hathaway, Everest Re, Liberty Mutual, Lloyd’s, PICC,
Ping An, Samsung FMI, Sinosure, Starr and W.R. Berkley did not
respond to the Insure Our Future questionnaire.

11 H. R. Kaufmann, “Storm damage insurance - Quo Vadis?” Swiss Re,
November 1990.

9

Annex: Background notes on this platform
New or expanded coal, oil, and gas projects are defined as newcoal, oil and gas extraction projects, power plants, transport facilities
and other infrastructure (such as LNG terminals) that drive expanded
extraction. This includes, but is not limited to, all oil and gas projects
which had not yet received a Final Investment Decision (FID) by the endof 2021.
In accordance with the Global Coal Exit List, coal companies aredefined as those that generate at least 20% of their revenue frommining and transporting coal or at least 20% of their electricity fromburning coal; or produce at least 10 million tonnes of coal per year, or
operate at least 5GW of coal-fired power stations; or are planning newcoal mining, power or infrastructure projects.
Oil and gas companies are defined as oil and gas producers, oilservice and equipment companies, companies involved in transporting
oil, oil traders, companies refining and processing oil, or companies
involved in the production and transport of LNG and power utilities
which depend on oil and gas for more than 20% of their revenue. The
Global Oil and Gas Exit List offers a list of companies in the upstream
and midstream sectors.
Credible 1.5°C pathways must provide a greater than 50% chanceof limiting global warming to 1.5°C, must not rely on offsets and must
only rely on negative emissions to a minimal degree, as reflectedin the One Earth Climate Model (OECM). According to the OECM’ssectoral pathways report, which was commissioned by the Net-Zero
Asset Owners Alliance, a credible 1.5°C pathway requires that Scope
3 emissions from fossil fuel production must be reduced as follows,
compared with 2019:

The FPIC policy should result in the ending of any insurance services
for customers which fail to provide evidence that FPIC has beenobtained for all projects on Indigenous lands and territories covered by
the insurance policy.

12 Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and University of Exeter, The
Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios, Limitations and assumptions ofcommonly used climate-change scenarios in financial services, July
2023

31 Nature, Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world,
September 8, 2021
32 See Peter Bosshard, New insured emissions protocols are a fig
leaf for continued fossil fuel expansion, in: Environmental Finance,
November 16, 2022
33 Financial Times, European insurers say US backlash has damaged
climate change push, August 12, 2023
34 Bloomberg News, Zurich Insurance CEO Criticizes Climate Clubs
After Exodus, August 10, 2023
35 Swiss Re Sigma, A perfect storm, Natural catastrophes and inflationin 2022, March 22, 2023
36 Swiss Re Institute, In 5 charts: continued high losses from natural
catastrophes in 2022, March 29, 2023
37 First Street Foundation, The insurance bubble, 2023
38 See E&E News EnergyWire, A new energy battleground: Insurance
for LNG terminals, June 5, 2023
39 E&E News ClimateWire, Growing insurance crisis spreads to Texas,
April 17, 2023

14 UN, Rights-Based Approach, Renewable Energy Revolution Key
for Safer, More Sustainable World, Secretary-General Tells General
Assembly, Outlining 2023 Priorities, February 6, 2023

40 See Peter Bosshard, Chiara Arena, Who pays for a hurricane?
Context, October 14, 2022

15 Institute and Faculty of Actuaries & Climate Crisis Advisory Group,
Climate Emergency – tipping the odds in our favour, November 2022
16 Energy Institute, Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2023
17 Fatih Birol, Peak fossil fuel demand will happen this decade, Financial
Times, September 12, 2023
18 Global Energy Monitor, Global Coal Plant Tracker (July 2023), Global
Gas Infrastructure Tracker (July and December 2022) and Global Oil
Infrastructure Tracker (May 2023)

41 A short ton is a measurement unit equal to 2,000 pounds (907.18 kg),commonly used in the U.S.
42 University of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures,
Limit global warming to 1.5˚C, Sectoral pathways & Key Performance
Indicators, May 2022
43 Public Citizen, Covering Coal: The Top Insurers of U.S. Coal Mining,
September 2023
44 Insure Our Future and Solutions for Our Climate, Exposed:
The Coal Insurers of Last Resort, June 2022

19 New York Times, Large Insurers Are Hatching a Plan to Take Down
Coal, November 23, 2021

45 See Coal Action Network, Lloyd’s of London Insurer Probitas Exits
Controversial Adani Coal Mine, July 2023

20 Insuramore, Fossil Fuel Insurance Analysis for the Insure Our FutureCampaign, unpublished research, June 2023.

46 Reclaim Finance, The good, the bad and the ugly: The fossil fuelpolicies of Lloyd’s managing agents, April 2023

21 Willis Towers Watson, Energy Market Review 2023, April 2023. p. 65

47 Facultative insurance covers a specific risk or defined package ofrisks; treaty insurance covers all risk of a certain type.

22 Willis Towers Watson, Energy Market Review 2023, April 2023, p. 33.
23 See footnote 29.
24 Extreme oil and gas include tar sands, associated pipelines, Arctic andultra-deep water drilling.

Oil: -8% by 2025, -31% by 2030, -100% by 2050

25 Intelligent Insurer, Big Underwriting Survey 2023

Gas: -7% by 2025, -18% by 2030, -94% by 2050

26 Deloitte, 2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey

Any company that is building new coal, oil or gas expansion projects
is not aligned with 1.5°C. All coal-related assets need to be closed by2030 in European and OECD countries and by 2040 in the rest of theworld. Insurance services to be phased out include reinsurance for thecaptive insurers of the respective fossil fuel companies.

27 Well-capitalized companies from the oil and other sectors can selfinsure their businesses through so-called “captive insurers” which theyown.

Insurers’ fossil fuel policies

30 All data in this box from Greenpeace Nordic, Ensuring disaster, May
2023

13 IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5°C, Special Report,
October 2018

Coal: -49% by 2025, -79% by 2030, -100% by 2050

Workers’ compensation policies, which directly benefit workers in thecoal, oil and gas industry, renewable energy projects and operations
which are ring-fenced from other energy and power sector projects
and operations, and existing mine reclamation surety bonds should be
exempt from this policy.

36

Insurers need to set emissions reduction targets for new projects aswell as ongoing operations and need to define short- and mediumterm targets (starting in 2025) across the entire commercial property& casualty portfolio. The targets must cover all greenhouse gases andthe Scope 3 emissions of all carbon intensive sectors, including coal,oil, gas and electric utilities. They must aim for a reduction of insured
emissions of at least 43% by 2030 (compared with 2019, as required
according to the IPCC).

28 A contract with Mexico’s Pemex, which is only renewed every two
years, accounts for a large part of Mapfre’s fossil fuel premium
revenue. For the purpose of this list we have averaged Mapfre’s fossil
fuel premkums over the years.
29 Facultative insurance covers a specific risk or defined package of risks;treaty insurance covers all risk of a certain type.

2023 Scorecard

37

Fifty Years of Climate Failure
The 2023 Scorecard on
Insurance, Fossil Fuels,
and the Climate Emergency

In August 1973 the insurance
industryfirstwarnedabout
increasing climate risks.
Fifty years later, the industry
is not pulling its weight toaccelerate climate action
and avoid an unmanageableclimate breakdown.
45 big insurers have adopted
coal exit policies and 18 havestarted to restrict their coverfor conventional oil and gas
projects. Yet many leading
insurersstilladdfueltothefire
by underwriting the expansionof the oil and gas industry.
This report summarizes recent
trends in fossil fuel insurance,
rates the climate policies of 30
leading insurers and their CEOs,andidentifiesleadersand
laggards in the industry.

insure-our-future.com/scorecard